Rik Tindall
The Press reports:
A key moment in Nazi Germany history is the inspiration for the “hatchet job” on Environment Canterbury (ECan), says regional councillor Rik Tindall. …
In a letter to the editors of The Press and the Timaru Herald, he says there is no “dysfunctionality” at ECan.
I can’t believe he said that with a straight face.
“The report attempts to inflagrate a Canterbury version of the 1933 Reichstag fire incident, to justify curtailment of democracy. New Zealanders should be very, very concerned as to the direction their country is taking,” he said.
“The unconscionably severe attack upon local democracy is simply a smokescreen to cover for … an asset and power grab by the most threatening of New Zealand forces.”
You expect comparing the Government to the Nazis from deranged anonymous trolls, not from elected Councillors. Anyone that hysterical should never have been elected in the first place, so I did a google on Mr Rik Tindall.
Turns out he is a senior Green Party activist:
A dedicated multiculturalist, I work to bring together the Greens and the Maori Party for leading New Zealand to the complete and spiritual sustainability we all seek, with social justice and economic wellbeing in ecological harmony.
Someone want to tell me what spiritual sustainability is? Is there some finite number of souls that we may use up?
Rik spent time in left and peace movements in the UK, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In New Zealand he has been involved with Greenpeace; the Gulf Crisis Peace Committee of Otautahi/Christchurch; Health Service & Benefit Cut protest groups and an Education Action Group fighting fees in the early 1990’s; Paakaitore / Moutoa Gardens occupant in 1995; the Christchurch Polytechnic Students Association Executive and a fee protest bus tour to Parliament.
I love it that he includes travelling on a bus, in his CV.
Also remember how Rik claimed Ecan is not at all dysfunctional, well read this story:
Kane complained in August about “threatening” emails sent by Tindall.
Tindall’s email attack on his colleagues followed his unsuccessful bid to be elected as ECan’s representative on a Christchurch City Council climate change and sustainability working party.
Tindall then made a complaint about Kane, accusing her of leaking emails to The Press.
Details of his hysterical e-mails are here.
Emails forwarded to The Press show that as a result of not being elected to the working group, Tindall wrote to his colleagues saying he would “absolve myself of all and any responsibility for any loss of life in Canterbury that should happen to occur through deficiencies in civil defence and emergency management (CDEM) preparedness”.
So get this. He did not get elected to a CCC working party on cimate change, and his response is to declare this will somehow lead to people dying through lack of civil defence preparedness and he “absolves” himself of responsibility for the loss of life.
I can now understand why he made the Nazi comparisons – he is obviously prone to bouts of hysteria.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:49 am
So the real question is why a tool like this ever got elected. Do the people of Canterbury care so little that they couldn’t be bothered voting, leaving only the raving nutters to vote? Or are Canterbury people actually raving nutters, and this guy represents them? Or is the system somehow broken? Or did he not show his true views during the election process (given his CV, not sure how that is possible – maybe the media didn’t do their job and point out that he’s a nutter?)
Is there perhaps a problem where we have a largish city, and most of the people in that city are completely unaffected by eCan, and can’t be bothered voting. Of course, the Green nutters all vote. And a surrounding rural area that is going to be greatly affected by what goes on, so they vote, but not that many people live in the countryside anymore. Outcome – eCan full of a combination of green nutters and sensible rural folks. No wonder they’re disfunctional.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:51 am
The National Government did threaten to dismiss the democratically elected Ecan council and install it’s own officials in their place.
Sounds like something that happens in Fiji, not Canterbury.
At present, the control of water in the region has passed out of the hands of the democratically elected councillors and into the hands of a represenntative of the National Government – in other words, National has succeeded in steam-rolling the democratic process and grabbing control of the most prized resource in the region – water.
Nik What’s-his-name might be an easy target for derision by right wingers, but he’s on the ball with this issue.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:07 am
……..”spiritual sustainability we all seek”……….
Cue for the peolpe who call for secularism and rationalism in politics……….. sorry that only applies to Christians.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Um, what about the four ECan Councillors (Mark Oldfield, Pat Harrow, Angus McKay, and Bronwen Murray) who persist in voting on issues relating to water management, including the decision last week to propose a “compromise” postion to the Government of removing water management from ECan’s jurisdiction, despite having been found by the Auditor-General to have had a clear and significant conflict of interest?
That is of far greater concern to me than Councillor Rik Tindall being a bit OTT with his language. Any thoughts about those four Councillors DPF?
And that Wyatt Creech, who headed the ECan review and recommended sacking the democratically elected Council and replacing it with an unelected Commissioner because of its performance in water management was a Director of Open Country Dairy Limited – a company with criminal convictions for illegal effluent discharges and storage.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:15 am
The National Government did threaten to dismiss the democratically elected Ecan council and install it’s own officials in their place.
As Labour was thinking of doing about eighteen months ago – it decided against it as there was an election on the horizon. Moreover to dismiss a poorly functionly council is not anti-democratic – Helen Clark dismissed the Auckland Area Health Board for similar reasons while she was Minister of Health.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Um, what about the four ECan Councillors (Mark Oldfield, Pat Harrow, Angus McKay, and Bronwen Murray) who persist in voting on issues relating to water management, including the decision last week to propose a “compromise” postion to the Government of removing water management from ECan’s jurisdiction, despite having been found by the Auditor-General to have had a clear and significant conflict of interest.
Do keep up. Three of those councillors have waivers from the Auditor General to vote on water issues on the grounds that their interests are insignificant (one the scale of $300 or so). Secondly the recent position is not a vote on water issues as such and so no conflict of interest arises.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:24 am
metcalf – the ‘poorly functioning council’ had made significant improvements since attention was brought to bear upon it. Toad describes one of its significant problems in its conflicted (farmer favouring) councillors, a problem that would be solved simply by keeping to correct procedures. National levered from those problems to create the appearance of crisis and used that as an excuse to grab control of the water resource, as required by its chief lobbyists, Federated Farmers. It’s a transparent attack on democracy and the defining feature of this Authoratarian National government.
Nik Tindall is right about that.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Hugh, we aren’t living in Russia, and “grabbing control of the most prized resource in the region” isn’t really what is going on. What is going on is that eCan are recognised by the councils that they provide service to as being completely disfunctional. If you have a board, even a democratically elected one, that is disfunctional and failing to perform the functions they were elected to perform, the government has a right and an obligation to do something about it.
Remember that the central government is also democratically elected, and I would argue with a much clearer mandate than eCan have (what percentage of the Canterbury population even voted in the eCan election?) If you are arguing that eCan’s mandate was somehow greater than that of the Central Government, I think you’re on a hiding to nothing.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:36 am
The guy sounds more stable and coherent than most Greens. I think he’d make an ideal third co-leader. And a fifth, or sixth, or seventh spokesman on the environment, depending on what number of spokesmen they’re already up to at the moment.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Just as well that Auckland’s assets are going to be tucked away safely in CCOs, out of the reach of elected ninkinpoops!
Just imagine what this guy would do if put in charge of billions of dollars of assets. An imagine also what might happen if we had the ‘rainbow’ seat allocations demanded by the Greens etc – seats for Maori, Asian, Women, old, young, disabled etc etc. Exactly the right qualifications for running billions of dollars of infrastructure assets!
March 11th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Sounds as is ECan has been hijacked by leftygreen thugs. Which illustrates nicely my theory of why the leftygreen brigade hate the CCO’s of the AKL super city, because they will be removed from positions of power and influence and they won’t be sucking cash from the ratepayers.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:40 am
He and Delahunty would make a great co-leadership pair.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:41 am
PaulL – your reference to Russia (?) aligns you with Mr Tindall and doesn’t set a very encouraging scene for your argument.
The most valuable resource that Canterbury has, is water (Canterbury holds 70% of the countries fresh water resource).
Control of that resource has suddenly shifted from a democratically elected body, not as the result of community pressure or a re-election, but unilaterally, from a government that is known to favour and be heavily influenced by one of the stakeholders of the resourse – the farmers. This is an undemocratic action and a transparent one at that.
As for your question; “what percentage of the Canterbury population even voted in the eCan election?”,
all I can say there is that you are attacking the very democratic institution that exists in New Zealand. Democratic elections are (or should be) the basis for our society here in NZ. Not only are you trying to cast doubt on them, you are supporting a Government that over-turns them without qualms.
Not impressed.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Indeed Toad, their behaviour is not good. But you didn’t really rebut David’s point, which was that for such a loon to be suggesting there was no dysfunctionality at ECan was hard to believe. Add the mad Mr Tindall to the four conflicted people you cite and there seems to be plenty of evidence that ECan is dysfunctional and the government’s actions are entirely justified.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:44 am
expat celebrates because “they will be removed from positions of power and influence”
“They” being democratically elected representatives.
What is the system of government called that you are promoting there, expat?
March 11th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Auberon – wrong. The way to correct a malfunctioning council where there are conflicts of interest, is to apply the rules correctly, not dismiss them outright, as was threatened.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Hugh, the power has been removed because ecan has become disfunctional because the leftygreen thugs like rikky (imagine a shrieking Bianca like voice) got to the levers of power. Removing power from a disfunctional local authority is one of the checks and balances in a functioning democracy.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Sounds like another Rik
I wonder if he likes Cliff Richard
March 11th, 2010 at 11:02 am
expat – odd that you say,
“imagine a shrieking Bianca like voice”
because reading your posts, I was! Uncanny!
Ecan was fully engaged in sorting it’s problems out. The Governments action, supported by thinking like yours, when dealing with the issue, was to threaten to dismiss the council and replace it with their own, ideologically identical representatives.
The ‘environmentalist v farmer’ conflict is one that can be resolved democratically. You don’t propose that method. Neither does the authoritarian National Government.
In any case, National removed control of water from the Ecan council, not because of their ‘disfunctionality’, but because they wanted direct control of the resource.
It’s plain.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:15 am
I don’t give a flying fuck for Tindall, but I DO care about democracy.
It is OUR ECAN, not Wyatt Creech’s and he should be told to fuck off in no uncertain terms and permit the voters to decide.
David, just what does the National party have against democracy?
March 11th, 2010 at 11:17 am
@Auberon
I agree with DPF (and disagree with Tindall) that ECan is dysfuntional insofar as water management is concerned.
But I don’t agree that denying Cantabrians any democratic oversight at all over water management is the way to address that. Chillingly for me as an Aucklander, that is exactly what Rodney Hide is pushing in Auckland through a different mechanism.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Choosing to denigrate one of Ecans councillors, rather than discuss the attack on democracy by the Government, is an dissapointing and disturbing approach for DPF to take. When there’s an opportunity to get his readers slathering over a ‘green’, DPF always takes that route. Posting on the real story behind the threats to Ecan would attract the ire of his National Party friends, I suspect. It’s a sad thing when a well known blogger has to run diversion for an attack on democracy.
After all, democracy is the critical feature of our governance, isn’t it David?
[DPF: If a nutbar starts comparing the Government to the third reich, then of course I am going to have a go at him.
The simple solution is for Mr Tindall to not use such offensive comparisons.
As far as I know the Govt has not made any decisions yet on ECan. It is considering sacking them for incompetance, just as Labour considered doing the same. Sacking an elected board for incompetance is not an attack on democracry. Helen Clark sacked the Auckland Area Health Board for the same thing]
March 11th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Hugh – what is your agenda here? You seem to be pushing very hard – not a green yourself are you?
There are different levels of democracy. It is well established that the larger scale, the larger the participation. National government is more representative than local government. In recent years we’ve proliferated local elected entities. You seem to think those local entities are still representative, since an election was held. The reality is that many of those entities have little or no engagement or interest from people, and therefore whilst there is an election, there is little real democracy going on.
If I had my way, I’d have only two levels of election – national and local. And the local ones would be for a unitary council, who would then appoint any other boards needed.
As for Auckland, I think this is pretty much the model that your hated Rodney Hide is going with. There is no suggestion that the bodies you refer to will disappear into some unelected world. Whomever is appointing the boards of those bodies will themselves be elected people. All we’re doing is proxying to a higher elected authority, rather than asking people to vote for 50 different little entities.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:49 am
……..”spiritual sustainability we all seek”……….
Cue for the peolpe who call for secularism and rationalism in politics……….. sorry that only applies to Christians.
No Kowtow, it doesn’t. As far as I’m concerned, Tindall should be keeping his bullshit out of it as well. I understand he may say his principles guide him, much as Christians would say theirs do, but in this country I would say the majority of Christians manage to balance their principles with that of secular democracy quite well, unlike Tindall who apparently seeks for New Zealand to embrace his.
I don’t really know much about the issue, but would a temporary government appointed board be acceptable, if it was on the proviso it was temporary and by-elections were to be held for the replacement of the board at the earliest possible opportunity? It would allow some time for some of the problems to be sorted out, and for a democratic process to be undertaken. And with the highlighting of the issues, more people might vote this time around (given the suggestions that many did not), thus giving the board a greater mandate.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:53 am
PaulL – alarm bells are ringing for democracy in New Zealand. The Super-City of Auckland is the more obvious example and well flagged. Canterbury and its water is another. My ‘agenda’ is to discuss the Ecan issue for what it really is, not fall for some yappy side-issue, like the utterings of one of the Ecan councillors.
Ask yourself this: who now controls the fate of Canterbury’s water – Cantabrians, through their democratically elected representatives, chosen with the water issue specifically in mind, or the National Government?
March 11th, 2010 at 11:54 am
“Someone want to tell me what spiritual sustainability is? Is there some finite number of souls that we may use up?”
A finite number of souls exist in the Guf until they are born. Or at least thats what Judaism teaches.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:58 am
PaulL – you said,
“You seem to think those local entities are still representative, since an election was held.”
Yes. I do. That’s what LOCAL elections are for. Local people voting on local issues. Oppose Boards of trustees managing their local schools as well, do you?
And you add,
“The reality is that many of those entities have little or no engagement or interest from people, and therefore whilst there is an election, there is little real democracy going on.”
Bullshit. You claim that democracy doesn’t work except at the national level.
What shite. Your concept of democracy is seriously askew.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
DPF “As far as I know the Govt has not made any decisions yet on ECan.”
Surely you are up to date with this issue David. Hard to imagine you are behind the play here.
” It is considering sacking them for incompetance, just as Labour considered doing the same.”
If Labour ‘considered sacking them’, then that was some time ago and as you ought to know, Ecan made significant progress toward resolving the issues that were identified as troubling.
“Sacking an elected board for incompetance is not an attack on democracry.”
Yes it is, if the pretence if incompetence is held and promoted, where it doesn’t exist to the extent that ‘sacking’ is required, as in this instance. You know as well as I, that National has taken the opportunity to grab control here in Canterbury and have done so by dishonest means.
“Helen Clark sacked the Auckland Area Health Board for the same thing”
The issue here is water and the control there-of, not the competence or otherwise of a democratically elected board.
Kinda sad that you’re citing the actions of Helen Clark still. get over her David!
March 11th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Hugh: you’ve failed to explain where you’re coming from. I believe your name is a pseudonym, I suspect you’ve got a partisan political viewpoint here that you’re pushing and that you’re actively avoiding disclosing that.
Addressing your points, I disagree with you. Too many elections leads to disinterest on the part of most. The only people who would pay attention to an eCan election would be a farmer (your view is that they are hopelessly compromised because they’re impacted by what eCan does), or a greenie (I’d argue they’re hopelessly compromised by their belief that we should never have any impact on the environment, irrespective of what that does to the economic growth in our country).
This is not democracy at all, it is red tape and bungling. eCan were making no significant progress towards sorting out their issues, and leaving it alone would have been shirking the responsibilities that central government has. Frankly, the mess at eCan is holding back any progress on significant issues in the Canterbury region. There is much that could be achieved, but that group of people were not going to achieve anything.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
An earlier coment says it all.
ECAN has been hijacked by Green activists like Sage and Tindall who together with a Labour activist ex chairman tried to disenfranchise the rural community by setting up rural councillors in a “conflict of interest” situation.
On top of that Green activists have infiltrated key staff positions to the extent that elected members have been emasculated.
On every occasion ECAN have argued science before commissioners, they have been proved wrong and lost. Technical staff have allowed science to be subverted by Green politics.
Good riddance.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
[DPF]: “You expect comparing the Government to the Nazis from deranged anonymous trolls”
Quote of the year.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
HugeArse: “ECAN are fully engaged in sorting its problems out”
>> Can you translate that into plain English, you know, a sentence without any weasel words (as Pam Corkery used to say) and with measurable activities and outcomes.
If ECAN are screwed then the Govt. has a statutory duty to replace the governance and management with caretakers. It’s called responsible government.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Funny how right-wingers suddenly become very keen on central govt intervention when the intervention suits them. Lew from Kiwipolitico referred to them as liberthauritarians, which seems quite apt.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
PsychoM, you are confusing ACT supporters with those of a political leaning slightly to the right of commiegreenliberal scum.
The point remains ANY responsible government should sack state boards that are useless or compromised:
Auckland Disctrict Health Board
Hawkes Bay District Health Board
ECAN
March 11th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Psycho Milt, expat is right. when an organisation like ECAN has been subverted by a minority political faction and is acting against the interests of those it is supposed to serve by promoting the narrow dogma of that minor political group – the the Govt has a DUTY to act.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
The guy is a fruit loop, like mad mayor Andy Williams, and that’s what DPF posted about. It seems some Hugh is some lefty with an agenda trying to make it an issue about democracy via this comments section, when it’s plain to anyone sane that this about the fact the guy threw his toys out the cot because he didn’t get elected (ironic – Rik fails in a democratically held election and bitches about it, and Hugh thinks it’s an attack on democracy that DPF posts about him being a fool)
March 11th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
PaulL says,
“I believe your name is a pseudonym”
Christ! You’re a sharp one!
You seem desperate for me to lable myself, presumably so that you can sheet your political prejudice to me. Why not challenge my statements, PaulL (I don’t know anyone whose real surname is ‘L’) as they come.
Regional Council elections aren’t “too many elections”.
Those who were elected to Ecan aren’t ‘hopelessly compromised’ as you claim. They may hold strong partisan views, but that’s to be expected in most boards of all stripes. Such councils work well with tensions like those. Your claim that Ecan is a group of people who are not going to achieve anything, is wrong. That board needed to and were making changes to their operations. The Governments spin that they were terminal and needed to be dismissed was just convenient beating up to facilitate the undemocratic grab of the water resource.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
…the Govt has a DUTY to act.
Like I said – you guys are very keen on big govt intervening when it suits you. It would be nice if you could spare us the “small govt” posturing the rest of the time.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Psycho Milt, No, you guys are very keen to try and subvert democracy and when caught try to hide behind the democratic system you despise
March 11th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
expat calls me ‘huge arse’.
That’s funny, I suppose, ridiculing someone because their view is different from ones own.
But the ‘calling names’ game can be fun.
You’ve gotta wonder though, why a guy with a psuedonym that ends with ‘pat’, would want to play that game.
Psycho Milt – Grumpy and Expat are wrong and I’m certain you can see that clearly.
Ecan hasn’t been subverted by a minority political faction as Grumpy would have you believe.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Rightnow, you are wrong now – to say,
“Hugh thinks it’s an attack on democracy that DPF posts about him being a fool”.
I couldn’t care less about DPF’s thoughts about Rik Tindall. I said the actions of the National Government toward Ecan are undemocratic, as they are. DPF would serve the country better by adressing that issue, rather than the light-weight story he chose to post. But I don’t think he will, as it would serve his National Party poorly, were it discussed in any depth.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Hugh – I appreciate the point you’re making, but would point out you’re commenting on a blog post about Rik Tindall being a fruit loop. That’s the topic, and if you want to post about a different topic you have every right to set up a blog (they are free to set up) and write a post about it.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Right O
March 11th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
expat (3094) Says:
March 11th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
If ECAN are screwed then the Govt. has a statutory duty to replace the governance and management with caretakers. It’s called responsible government.
Umh, which statute would that duty be under?
March 11th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Hugh Manatee says:
“Ecan hasn’t been subverted by a minority political faction as Grumpy would have you believe.” – Wrong
The Green activists (Sage, Tindall) together with Labour’s Kerry Burke etc. tried to disenfranchise all rural dwellers. If rural people elect one of their own (their representative), they are more than likely to be farmers and thus more than likely to hold water consents. Does this mean that if city dwellers like Tindall, Sage, Burke, etc. catch a bus, they are not entitled to coment/vote on ECAN’s role in Public Transport.
Even more than the “elected” officials, the employees have pushed the “green agenda”. As Hugh Manatee knows so much about ECAN, perhaps he can tell us how they lost the Rakaia-Selwyn and Waimakariri – Selwyn hearings and why ECAN has just had to write off 1/3rd of it’s Rakais-Selwyn hearing costs purely through pursuing a political agenda.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Umh, which statute would that duty be under?
It’s not a statute but a constitutional convention.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Grumpy’s comments, while grumpy, aren’t valid.
You ask, grumpy, if it means that ‘city dwellers’ should lose their entitlement to comment/vote about ‘city issues’.
No. Just as the ‘country dwellers’ don’t loose their entitlement to comment/vote about ‘country issues’.
Where there is a legal conflict of interest though, you’d expect any councillor to abide by the legal requirements and refrain.
I think you’ll find that some of the ‘country dwellers’ were found to have failed to do just that. No doubt it irks some of you to have to follow the rules of fairness, but there you are, that’s democracy.
You grump about a ‘green agenda’, yet oddly neglect to mention the ‘farmer agenda’.
Why is that, Grumps?
You’d expect ‘agenda’ from councillors – after all, differing groups vote for individuals they know will promote their shared views. A good council manages that reality by following the rules. National has over-ridden those processes, because of squealing from the farming lobby, that found its hunger for more resources and influence stymied by representatives of the Cantabrians who don’t want to see those resources captured.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
pursuing a political agenda.
metcalph (430) Says:
March 11th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Umh, which statute would that duty be under?
It’s not a statute but a constitutional convention.
OK, so what constitution does that convention come under?
March 11th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
OK, so what constitution does that convention come under?
Look up constitutional convention on the intertubes and stop being a retard.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Where there is a legal conflict of interest though, you’d expect any councillor to abide by the legal requirements and refrain.
The councilors concerned had legal advice that what they were doing was lawful. What Kerry Burke did was to release a portion of the auditor-general’s advice that their advice was wrong but _withheld_ the portion in which in which the AG said they could get a waiver (of which three out of the four councilors now have). The intent of Burke’s stunt was not to make things fair and square legally but to bias the council voting patterns in favour of his own agenda. The real reason why the AG didn’t prosecute was that natural justice appeared to be an alien concept to Bruke’s ethics.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
HugeArse-you were balls deep in the adhom game so don’t try and play the moral high ground card, buddy.
It is high time the teat suckling greenie commies that have infiltrated local body New Zealand are fumigated.
ECAN included.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Why then,do you think metcalph, has the Government taken control of the water management aspects of the council’s business, yet left them with the remainder?
My view?
There was a stink brewing over National’s anti-democratic behaviour and a half-pie anti-democratic action was chosen, to allow them to achieve what they set out to do, yet not stir up the people of Canterbury too much.
Cynical move from a Government that plays with democracy as it suits them.
Who now holds the control of Canterbury’s water?
Cantabrians?
Nope.
National. A political party.
Nice.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Show me where I adhom’d you expat. Use your cut’n'paste skills.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Why then,do you think metcalph, has the Government taken control of the water management aspects of the council’s business, yet left them with the remainder?
a) The government hasn’t taken over control yet. They are still considering their options.
b) The government is thinking about doing so because ECAN has been a bunch of useless fuckups in managing the water.
c) The government in intervening is being no more anti-democratic than Helen Clark was (cf the Auckland Area Health Board which has been mentioned thrice on this thread). I also note that the Labour Party was reported as pondering to do the same thing before the election but decided it would be a distraction from their impending loss.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
er, just then buddy boy. you know with the ever so SUBtle “use you cut’n'paste skills’ put down.
You’re in the office a bit late for a state services worker aren’t you Huge Arse? 17:29 you should be down at the units going back to Upper Hutt for a Lion Brown with Trevor.
March 11th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
expat – you must surely be the most sensitive commentor I’ve ever met!
Offended by a request to cut and paste!
I wonder what you do when someone says something really horrible to you, like calling you ‘four-eyes” or “shorty”!
(Sorry to be so coarse!)
How have you survived so long on Kiwiblog?
I’m not, incidentally, an office worker, nor am I a Wellingtonian.
I’m self-employed, live in a small town and am not a member of any political party.
I do know an authoritarian government when I see one though.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
It is high time the teat suckling greenie commies that have infiltrated local body New Zealand are fumigated.
Why do so many right-wingers start sounding like Mussolini if you give them a few minutes? If it’s not exterminating the commies it’s sterilising the underclass. And then they go claiming the Greens are weirdos – it’s a funny old world, innit.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Yeah, sensitive, I’m well known for being sensitive. But thanks for caring, I care that you care. You know? As much as I care about your lifestyle but do tell us more, are you enjoying the cut and thrust of business this year, P&L looking OK at year end?
March 11th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Psycho.Milt- what do you call Godwinning when it’s Mussolini based instead of Hitler based? Popesurrendering?
BTW: The Greens are fucking weird.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
expat – I’m not offended by being called Huge Arse. It’s sorta funny, kinda, but I wondered why you employed insults in a debate where there weren’t any previously.
The cut and thrust of business? You’d be surprised how apt your choice of words is! I’m doing fine and so is my partner, though that’s because we have an established, loyal client base and have low overheads for the business and for ourselves.
I do work online also, for a corporation you would recognise immediately, if you lived in NZ, so my own business isn’t the be-all and end-all for me.
Mind if I create a funny name for you, to use whenever we cross swords?
March 11th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
I’m thinking, “Huge Arse”.
I know it’s not original, but imitation is the highest form of flattery.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
fascinating, truly fascinating. what do you do?
March 11th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Inquisitive little expat, aren’t you!
Mainly I sit around on my huge arse.
What more do you need to know, my quizzical friend?
My bank account number?
March 11th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
BTW: The Greens are fucking weird.
Actually, you have a point there. The Greens definitely are a bunch of weirdos, whereas right-wingers’ tendency to ditch the “small govt” rhetoric and reach for authoritarianism whenever it suits them is the very definition of mundane. Fair cop guv.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
gosh, I am intrigued. are you really an obese masturbatory Oedipal as D4J supposes?
March 11th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Ditching a bunch of leaching eedjits at ECAN isn’t ditching the “small govt” rhetoric it’s responsible govt.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Huge Arse
Yes.
D4J’s word is his bond.
(Just as his mind is his cell).
March 11th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Poor Hugh has enough problems with his Oedipus complex. Sadly he suffers from neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality. It would drive anybody mad eh fugley.
[DPF: 50 demerits for the paedophilia reference]
March 11th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
D4J, you are right, he is.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
“Classical theory considers the successful resolution of the Oedipus complex to be developmentally desirable, the key to the development of gender roles and identity. Freud posited that boys and girls resolved the conflicts differently as a result of the male’s castration anxiety (caused by oedipal rivalry with the father) and the female’s penis envy. He also held that the unsuccessful resolution of the Oedipus complex could result in neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality.”
[DPF: 50 demerits for the paedophilia reference]
March 11th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Having debated the virtues of agriculture and it’s role in the increased dynamism of rural communities with Rik I can only shake my head in disbelief at his views. Cows = pollution, people farming cows= pollution, any growth in rural towns = pollution. If he could withhold/remove the right to irrigate and farm, polution would stop and people would stop polluting. In one invective and expletive filled tirade he also opined that if we were all bankrupted along the way he would be even happier.